This document discusses collaborative groups that manage cultural landscapes in Europe. It provides examples of such groups from Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, and the UK. These groups bring together stakeholders from different sectors like farming, conservation, and communities to coordinate landscape management. However, the findings show that some groups have dissolved or become less formalized in recent years due to financial difficulties, lack of support, and changing needs. This lack of resilience for the social subsystems that managed landscapes can negatively impact the resilience of the entire social-ecological system and decrease sustainability and adaptive capacity.

1. Collective efforts to manage
cultural landscapes
- Examples from Europe -
Katrin Prager
ACES Seminar Series 21-1-2011

2. Introduction
Cultural
landscapes

3. Introduction
Why investigate collaborative groups?
 Defining and working towards sustainable landscape
management
 Coordination, contiguous management
 A group can achieve more than individuals on their own
 How to evaluate? Who evaluates?
 If worthwhile – how support?
 Continuity?

4. Introduction
Background
 LandscapePartners project
(macaulay.ac.uk/LandscapePartners)
 Collaborative, community-based natural resource
management in Australia (Landcare)
Methods
 desk-based review, telephone inquiries, key informant
interviews
Approach/ theory
 Resilience theory

5. Resilience Theory
 System dynamics, social-ecological systems
 Resilience = the ability of a system to absorb disturbances and
to reorganise while undergoing change so as to still retain the
same structure and function (Holling, Gunderson, Folke, Walker)
 One of three responses to disturbance (adaption,
transformation)
state communities
Social system(s)
groups economy
disturbance
Social-ecological system
Ecological
system(s)

6. Resilience Theory
 Role of social subsystems in social-ecological systems
disturbance Local/regional
groups
Cultural
Landscape change
Ecological
system
 Habitat management activities, marketing of local foods
 Horizontal/ vertical coordination between land managers/
authorities
 Lower transaction costs for policy implementation

7. Collaborative groups
 Focus on cultural landscapes (several components and
landuses)
 Groups with stakeholders from diverse sectors
 Local or regional level (district, county)
 DE – Landschaftspflegeverbände (LPV)
 UK – Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG)
 AU – Distelverein
 NL – Environmental cooperatives (EC)

8. Characteristics of groups I
First Structure No of groups No of Area size Staff
group in in 2009 people
involved
Dutch EC 1992 Individual 125 number 10,000 500 ha – Not
groups and has increased members 3500 ha available
umbrella
organisation
(NPN)
German 1986 independent Approx. 150, 20,000 District About 2 per
LPV groups and number has farmers (approx. district =
umbrella increased under 1.500 to approx. 290
organisation contract 7.500 km²)
(DVL)
Austrian 1987 Single group 1, disbanded at Contracting Lower 6 (prior to
Distel- without sub- the end of farmers Austria 2009)
verein groups 2009 (19.177 km²)
FWAG 1969/ Headquarters 40 in ENG/ 10,000 Teams 130 in total,
(UK) 1984 and teams WAL, members covering 1-3 22 in
disbanded in counties Scotland
SCO in 2009 (2009)

9. Characteristics of groups II
Main sector Other sectors involved Focus Volunteers
Dutch EC Emphasis on farmers Administration Integrate nature Less important
(approx. 75% management into
overall) farming
German Emphasis on parity Hunting, tourism, Landscape and important
LPV of conservation, fisheries, marketing habitat management,
farming, community initiatives sustainable rural
councils development
Austrian Parity between Communities Maintain biodiversity Very important
Distel- conservation, in agricultural
verein farming, hunting landscapes
FWAG Farming Industry/ commercial 1-1 advice for Very important,
(UK) partners, environmental farmers and over 1000
groups and societies landowners on agri-
environment issues

10. Findings
 Current situation
 DE and NL: number of groups stable or increasing
 UK: FWAG Scotland dissolved but other branches active
 AU: group dissolved, no replacement
 Networks continue but less formalised; dispersed and very
localised efforts

11. Findings
Reasons for lack of resilience of social subsystems
 financial difficulties
 lack of member/partner support
 groups no longer needed
 lack of organisational support structure
Implications for resilience of social-ecological system
 Undesirable changes
 Decreased adaptive capacity
 Decreased sustainability

12. Thank you !